Post on 23-Jun-2018
ISSN 1799-2591
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 11, pp. 1590-1602, November 2011
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
doi:10.4304/tpls.1.11.1590-1602
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
Discourse Markers in High School English
Textbooks in Iran
Mohammad Reza Talebinejad Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, Iran
Email: talebinejad@IAUSH.ac.ir; rtalebinezhad@yahoo.com
Azam Namdar Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, Iran
Email: Anamdarz64@yahoo.com
Abstract—Discourse Markers (DMs) are affective factors to connect sentences, hence making the text coherent.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reading comprehension sections of Iranian high school English
textbooks (IHSETs) to find out the extent of using DMs and their types. To this end, the reading sections in
IHSETs were analyzed to determine DMs. Fraser’s (1999) category of DMs were used with 4 main
classifications: a) Contrastive Markers, b) Elaborative Markers, c) Inferential Markers, and 4) Topic Change
Markers. To make this investigation viable, parallel texts in internationally-developed English textbooks were
compared with IHSETs in terms of the use of DMs. To insure the equality of the number of words and level of
difficulty, the Flesch (1948) readability formula was used. The results showed that there was a significant
difference between the frequency of DMs in the reading sections of IHETs and the authentic texts to the
benefit of the authentic texts. Materials designers may find the results helpful in their work.
Index Terms—discourse markers, textbooks, reading comprehension, readability
I. INTRODUCTION
Course books are necessary tools in teaching. They can manage the process of teaching and learning. Razmjoo (2007)
has considered textbook as a necessary resource for foreign language learning that has the main role in teaching and
learning a foreign language. He has analyzed high school textbooks versus private institute books to see whether they
are based on communicative teaching principles. His study has shown that textbooks in private institutes fulfill
communicative language teaching (CLT) to a great extent whereas textbooks in high school are neither based on CLT
nor fulfill language learners‘ needs. Dahmardeh (2009) has analyzed 20 Iranian English teachers and an author of the
textbooks‘ perspectives about English materials in Iranian English textbooks. According to his research, the
disadvantages of the current courses were determined as follow (Dahmardeh, 2009, p. 2):
a. Lack of coherence
b. A narrow curriculum
c. Form-based exercises
d. Lack of flexibility
He has added that the main focus in Iranian English book is on reading comprehension and presentation of reading
strategies. Reading is an important skill because other skills are defined in the framework of reading. Reading is
communication between reader and writer and the purpose of reading is making the meaning.
Jahangard (2007) has pointed out that listening and speaking skills are marginal activities in EFL materials in Iranian
high schools. Reading skill, which seems to be the most important skill in books, is a tool to introduce grammatical
points, and texts are manipulated to reinforce particular grammatical points included in the grammar section of the book.
Gabb (2001) believes that reading is like watching a movie in your head. Rivers (1981) has believed that reading is the
most important skill in language learning because it can represent lots of information and is a pleasurable activity, and it
can also extend one‘s knowledge of the language.
According to Goodman (1967), reading is a selective process. It means that comprehending a text is based on the use
of available language used in the texts that are selected from perceptual input regarding what the reader expects from a
text. Widdowson (1979) believes written discourse as well as spoken discourse operates in accordance with Grice's
(1975) cooperative principle. Language is used as a clue to correspondence of conceptual world in this interaction
between readers and writers. He has added interpretation of written or spoken discourse needs as a kind of creativity.
This creativity is done based on textual clues by the readers.
A. What Is Discourse Analysis?
Widdowson (1979) has also thought that teachers generally do not pay much attention to teaching how to relate
sentences together to form stretches of connected discourse. Teachers rely on the grammarian to connect the sentences
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1591
and they consider sentences as distinct units. Louwerse and Graesser (2005, pp. 1-2) infer that, ―Several years ago the
term discourse was reserved for dialogue, and text was reserved for monologue. In contemporary research, discourse
covers both monologic and dialogic spoken and written language.‖
According to Fraser (1999), DMs are conjunctions, adverbs, and propositional phrases that link different parts of a
text like sentences and phrases together. Redecker (1991, p. 1168) calls them discourse operators and defines them as a
―word or phrase, for instance, a conjunction, adverbial, comment clause, interjection that is uttered with the primary
function of bringing to listeners‘ attention a particular kind of the upcoming utterance with the immediate discourse
context.‖ Mingliang and Dayon (2007) have also mentioned that students will know what and how to read and reading
will be simplified if they know about textual functional DMs. So, students distinguish more important sentences, and in
this way, their speed in reading will increase.
B. Fraser’s Discourse Markers
Fraser (1999) has claimed that DMs have been studied under various labels like, discourse markers, discourse
connectives, discourse operators, pragmatic connectives, sentence connectives, and cue phrases. Fraser (1999, p. 931)
defines DMs ―as a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of conjunctions, adverbs, and
propositional phrases.‖ He has also believed that DMs represent a relationship between the interpretations of a segment
that is known as S2 and the previous one, S1. He has shown the canonical form as <S1. DM+ S2>. DMs in Fraser‘s
classification have been viewed as procedural meaning, and their linguistic and conceptual interpretation is ‗negotiated‘
by the context. Fraser (1999) introduces two kinds of DMs. The first group relates to some aspects of S2 to S1 explicitly,
and the second group relates the topic of S1 to S2. According to him, there are some important issues about DMs.
DMs relate some aspects of the message in S2 and S1. The first class in Fraser‘s category is Contrastive Markers.
These kinds of DMs show that interpretation of S2 contrasts with an interpretation of S1. Consider this sentence that
contains DMs:
John weighs 150 pounds. In comparison, Jim weights 155.
In this sentence, in comparison indicates that S2 is in contrast with S1. According to meaning, this subclass can be
divided as (Fraser, 1999, p. 947):
a. but
b. however, (al)though
c. in contrast (with/ to this/ that), whereas
d. in comparison (with/ to this/ that(
e. on the contrary; contrary to this/ that
f. conversely
g. Instead (of (doing) this/ that, in spite of (doing) this/ that, nevertheless, nonetheless, still)
The second subclass is called Elaborative Markers. DMs relate messages in S2 to S1. ―In these cases, the DM signals
a quasi-parallel relationship between S2 and S1‖ (Fraser, 1999, p. 948(:
You should be always polite. Above all, you shouldn‘t belch at the table.
They didn‘t want to upset the meeting by too much talking. Similarly, we didn‘t want to upset the meeting by too
much drinking.
Finer distinctions include:
a. and
b. above all, also, besides, better yet, for another thing, furthermore, in addition, moreover, more to the point, on top
of it all, too, to cap it all off, what is more
c. I mean, in particular, namely, parenthetically, that is (to say(
d. analogously, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, likewise, similarly
e. be that as it may, or, otherwise, that said, well
The third class of DMs in Fraser‘s is called Inferential Markers. These group of DMs shows that S2 is seen as
conclusion for S1:
The bank has been closed all day. Thus, we couldn‘t make a withdrawal.
It‘s raining. Under those conditions, we should ride our bikes.
It can also be said that S1 is viewed as a reason for S2. Thus, it indicates that content of S2 is the conclusion of S1.
Inferential markers can be placed in theses subclasses:
a. so
b. of course
c. accordingly, as a consequence, as a logical conclusion, as a result, because of this/that, consequently, for this/that
reason, hence, it can be concluded that, therefore, thus
d. in this/ that case, under these/those conditions, then
e. all this things considered
As mentioned before, the first main class of DMs relates some aspects of S1 and S2; they are called Contrastive
Markers, Elaborative Markers, and Inferential Markers. The second main class of DMs in Fraser‘s category is Topic
Change Markers:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1592
The dinner looks delicious. Incidentally where do you shop?
I am glad that it is finished. To return to my point, I‘d like to discuss your paper.
In the first example, incidentally shows that S2 is a digression from the topic of S1, whereas in the other example, to
return to my point indicates that the speaker intends to reintroduce the previous topic. They are:
back to my original point, I forget, by the way, incidentally, just to update you, on a different note, speaking of X, that
reminds me, to change to topic, to return to my point, while I think of it, with regards to
C. Coherence and Cohesive Devices
Dulger (2007) has mentioned that a writer follows a coherent composition from word to sentence and from sentence
to paragraph. Cohesive devices connect sentences, and Dulger mentions that a coherent text has a smooth flow in which
sentences follow each other easily. He has added that readers make use of syntactic and structural relations to get the
meaning of the text. In written discourse and above sentence level, besides punctuation and layout, discourse markers
help writers to connect sentences to form a paragraph and paragraphs to form a text. Hussein (2006) has claimed that
coherence group considers DMs as linguistic devices. He also adds that DMs cause coherence in the text by connecting
different parts of a text.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) have viewed coherence of a text as well-formed text. They also believe that cohesion is a
linguistic device through the use of which we can relate units of a text so that the text becomes coherent. A text can be
coherent by using co-reference, ellipsis, and conjunctions. They have also represented five categories for English
cohesive devices: 1) reference, 2) substitution, 3) ellipses, 4) lexical cohesion, and 5) conjunction. Halliday and Hasan
have viewed conjunction or connective element as discourse markers; they are some categories for discourse markers:
1. Additive: and, or, also, in addition, furthermore, besides, similarly, likewise, by contrast, for instance, etc.
2. Adversative: but, yet, however, instead, on the other hand, nevertheless, at any rate, as a matter of fact, etc.
3. Causal: so, consequently, it follows, for, because, under the circumstances, for this reason, etc.
4. Continuative: now, of course, well, anyway, surely, after all, etc.
They have pointed out that if sentences are related semantically through the use of cohesive devices it can be known
as a text. So, the terms ‗texture‘ and ‗cohesion‘ are extremely related together. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classified
cohesion into two types: grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. The most familiar group for grammatical cohesion
is DMs. Hussein (2006. p. 3) has referred to some examples for DMs:
a. He has got a very good mark in the math test.
b. And, he has been the first in his class for the last. (additive(
c. Yet, he failed his syntax test this term. (adversative(
d. Now, he feels very frustrated and thinks of leaving school. (temporal(
Hussein (2006, p. 3) has mentioned that lexical cohesion can be achieved through repetition or reiteration. There was
a great woman, who used to look after me when I was a kid. She used to feed me, play with me, and tell me nice stories.
The woman was my mother.
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A number of questions such as: How are DMs used in Iranian high school English textbooks? Are such important
factors taken into consideration? Are students exposed to DMs sufficiently in reading comprehension sections in
English textbooks? Were addresses in this study which aimed at studying how DMs are used in Iranian high school
English textbooks for the first time. It also analyzed teachers' ideas about these books regarding using DMs, and
whether students know about the influence of DMs on reading comprehension.
III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
According to what has been said so far, the following questions were raised:
1. To what extent are DMs used in the reading comprehension sections in high school English textbooks in Iran?
2. What kinds of DMs are used in the reading comprehension sections in high school English textbooks in Iran?
IV. METHODOLOGY
A. Materials
In this research study, some instruments were used with the purpose of collecting the information. One was Fraser's
(1999) category of DMs, Iranian high school English Textbooks, authentic books which were written by native speakers
of English a questionnaire based on Miekley's (2005) and Yannopoulos's (2004) checklist which were given to the
teachers. The other instrument used was Flesch (1948) readability formulas to determine the readability of the different
texts.
1. Iranian High School English Textbooks (IHSETs)
All of the reading sections in IHSETs were analyzed to distinguish the DMs. There are 9 reading comprehension
sections in Book 1 (Birjandi, Soheili, Nowroozi, & Mahmoodi, 2000), 7 reading comprehension sections in Book 2
(Birjandi, Nowroozi, & Mahmoodi, 2002a), 6 reading comprehension sections, in Book 3 (Birjandi, Nowroozi, &
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1593
Mahmoodi, 2002b), and 8 lessons in Book 4 (Birjandi, Ananisarab, & Samimi, 2006). Book 4 was used as a pre-
university book before (by 2010), but now the system of education has changed and the pre-university cycle is called
the 4th Grade.
2. Authentic Texts
To analyze the DMs in IHSETs, it was necessary to compare these texts with authentic texts. There was a traditional
suppose that learners should be presented by simplified language, but nowadays it is recommended that they should
deliver authentic language )Widdowson, 1979). So, 14 reading texts were selected randomly from prevalent authentic
books which are taught in Iran. These books are:
1. Steps to Understanding by L.A. Hill, (1980)
2. Start Reading 4 and 5 by Derek Strange (1989)
3. New Headway English Course by Liza John Soars (2000a)
4. Developing Reading Skills by Linda Markstein and Louise Hirasawa (1981)
5. Expanding Reading Skill by Linda Markstein and Louise Hirasawa (1982)
6. New American Streamline by Bernard Hartley and Peter Viney (1995)
7. Interchange 3 Students Book by Jack C. Richards, Jonathan Hull, and Susan Proctor (2005)
8. Marvin's Woolly Mammoth by Jill Eggleton(n.d.)
B. Procedure
The aim of the current research was the analysis of frequency of the DMs and kinds of the DMs in IHSETs. All of
the reading sections in IHSETs were analyzed to distinguish kinds of the DMs and more than 50% of the reading
sections were investigated to show the frequencies of DMs. It should be mentioned that the investigation of frequency is
not viable unless we compare these reading sections with some texts in authentic texts. In order to analyze the DMs,
some criteria were used. The present study benefited from Frasers‘ (1999) category of DMs to analyze the reading
comprehension sections in IHSETs in terms of using the DMs and familiarizing the students with DMs in the reading
comprehension sections.
To determine the number of the DMs in IHSETs, the frequency of DMs used in each reading passage was identified
and they were presented in tables. Four tables were prepared to show the DMs contained in the reading sections in each
IHSET. Then, to compare the reading sections in IHSETs and the authentic texts properly, it was necessary to determine
the readability ratio of each text. Flecsh‘s Readability Formula was used to determine the difficulty level of the reading
passages. In this way, one can see whether the DMs used in IHSETs reading sections are sufficient. To compare the
texts, they should be equal regarding the number of words or length of the texts and their level of difficulty.
V. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In this study, two questions were put forward regarding the DMs in the English textbooks in high school. To answer
the first question, the reading comprehension sections of the textbooks were analyzed regarding the use of the DMs. To
make this investigation viable, parallel texts in internationally developed English textbooks were compared with
IHSETs in terms of the use of the DMs. The texts in the textbooks in comparison to the texts in internationally
developed English textbooks should have been in the same level of readability and length. So, the readability of all the
texts in the textbooks and their parallel texts in internationally prepared texts was determined by the use of Flesch‘s
Readability Formula. Fifty per cent of the texts in the textbooks were selected randomly and were investigated in terms
of the use of the DMs.
A. Answering the First Research Question
To answer the first research question–that is, ―to what extent are DMs used in the reading comprehension sections in
high school English textbooks in Iran?‖—the frequencies of DMs in English Books 1, 2, 3 and 4 were investigated and
compared with the DMs in the authentic texts.
1. DMs in English Book 1
There were nine reading comprehension texts in English Book 1, four texts of which were investigated in terms of the
use of DMs and were compared to the authentic texts in internationally developed textbooks (see Table 5.1 in Appendix
B). The first column includes the titles of reading sections in English Book 1 that were compared to the authentic texts.
These two groups of texts had to be equal in the rate of readability and their length. So, the second and third columns
indicate the number of words in each reading section and their readability score. The main issue in this table is the
number of DMs which are shown in the fifth column. The second half of the table shows the same information for texts
of internationally developed books.
Regarding Table 5.1, the number of the DMs in four reading sections of English Book 1 is nine, whereas the number
of the DMs in the parallel texts of the authentic textbook is 45. In order to investigate the difference in frequency of the
DMs in high school texts and the authentic texts, a chi-square test was run. Table 5.1 shows the results of this test:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1594
TABLE 5.1.
THE RESULTS OF THE CHI-SQUARE FOR BOOK 1
Observed Expected N Residual
Authentic Text 45 27.0 18.0
English Book 1 9 27.0 -18.0
Total 54
As the statistics in Table 5.1 reveals, the chi-square is 24 which is significant at p = .000. Therefore, the texts in
English Book 1 were statistically different from the authentic texts in terms of the number of the DMs used.
2. DMs in English Book 2
The reading comprehension texts of lesson 2, 4, 6, and 7 were selected from seven reading comprehension sections of
English Book 2. Parallel texts which were equal in length and readability were found in internationally developed books
and these two groups of texts were compared in terms of using the DMs. The results of these comparisons are presented
in Table 5.2 (see Appendix B). The number of the DMs used in English Book 2 was 25 and the number of the DMs of
the authentic texts was 41. Another chi-square test was employed to compare the frequencies of the DMs in both series.
Table 5.2 indicates the results of this test:
TABLE 5.2.
THE RESULTS OF THE CHI-SQUARE FOR BOOK 2
The statistics in Table 5.2 reveals that the chi-square is 3.879 which is significant at p = .049. Therefore, the texts in
English Book 2 were statistically different from the authentic texts with regard to the number of the DMs used.
3. DMs in English Book 3
English Book 3 includes six reading comprehension texts. Again, four of the reading comprehension sections were
selected and the DMs in these texts were compared to the DMs in texts of internationally developed books. The results
of these comparisons are presented in Table 5.3 (see Appendix B). A third chi-square was used to compare the
frequencies of the DMs in the two series. Table 5.3 demonstrates the results of this chi-square test:
TABLE 5.3.
THE RESULTS OF THE CHI-SQUARE FOR BOOK 3
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1595
Table 5.1 on page 7 shows that the amount of chi-square (9.615) is high enough to indicate that the difference
between the frequencies is statistically significant (p = .000). Therefore, once again it can be claimed that the texts in
English Book 1 were statistically different from the authentic texts regarding the number of the DMs used.
4. DMs in English Book 4
English Book 4 contains eight lessons and each lesson has one reading text except Lesson 8 which has two reading
texts. So, this book includes nine reading texts. Although this book has used authentic texts for reading comprehension
sections, in order to determine the number of the DMs in this book, six texts were selected and compared to the texts
from internationally developed books which were equal in the length and readability. The results of these comparisons
are presented in Table 5.4 (see Appendix B). In order to compare the frequencies, one last chi-square was implemented.
Table 5.4 shows the results:
TABLE 5.4.
THE RESULTS OF THE CHI-SQUARE FOR BOOK 1
Test Statistics
1.136
1
.286
Chi-Square a
df
Asymp. Sig.
charom
0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than
5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 44.0.
a.
By examining Table 5.4, one can understand the amount of chi-square (1.136) is only significant at p = .286 which is
not an acceptable amount to claim that the two series are different in the number of the DMs used.
B. Answering the Second Research Question
To answer the second question—that is, ―What kinds of DMs are used more in the reading comprehension sections in
high school English textbooks in Iran?‖—the DMs in all the reading comprehension texts were studied. All the DMs
used in the English textbooks were classified in according to Fraser‘s category of DMs.
1. Different Kinds of DMs in English Book 1
In order to investigate different kinds of the DMs in English Book 1, the reading comprehension texts of English
Book 1 were studied. Table 5 (see Appendix B) shows all the DMs used in English Book 1. As it is shown in Table 5,
of the various kinds of ‗contrastive markers‘ category, only but was used and of different kinds of ‗elaborative markers‘
category, only and was used. But ‗inferential markers‘ included more varieties. The most frequent kind of DM category
was ‗contrastive markers‘ in English Book 1, and there was no ‗topic change marker‘. Interestingly, the reading text in
Lesson 9 included no DMs at all.
2. Different Kinds of DMs in English Book 2
All seven reading comprehension sections of English Book 2 were investigated in terms of different kinds of the DMs.
There were 52 DMs in English Book 2 (see Table 5.5 in Appendix B). There were 19 buts from the category of
‗contrastive markers.‘ Like English Book 1, other kinds of ‗contrastive markers‘ were not included in the text, but
‗inferential markers‘ and ‗elaborative markers‘ included more varieties. There was no ‗topic change marker,‘ the same
as English Book 1, whereas the most frequent kind of the DMs was ‗elaborative markers‘ in English Book 2.
3. Different Kinds of DMs in English Book 3
The reading comprehension texts in English Book 3 were studied in terms of the use of the DMs. There were 35 DMs
in this book (see Table 5.7 in Appendix B). There were 13 ‗elaborative markers‘ used in English Book 3 which was the
most frequent kind of the DMs in English Book 3 and ‗contrastive markers‘ were the second most frequent kind of the
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1596
DMs in this book. In this book, however was added to the category of ‗contrastive markers‘ which was absent in the two
previous books. Again, ‗topic change markers‘ were not included.
4. Different Kinds of DMs in English Book 4
There were authentic texts in English Book 4. Although long texts were presented to the students, these texts include
different frequency of the DMs from English Books 1, 2, and 3. Various kinds of DMs were used in English Book 4 (see
Table 5.8 in Appendix B). It was a big change in the case of DMs between three previous books and English Book 4.
This book, unlike the three previous books, included ‗topic change markers.‘ The most frequent DMs used in English
Book 4 were ‗elaborative markers,‘ and then ‗contrastive markers.‘ The least frequent DMs, however, were ‗topic
change markers.‘
According to the analysis of the DMs in these books, the DMs in English Book 4 were used in a logical manner in
comparison to the DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3. So, to show what kinds of DMs were used more, two separate
tables were prepared. The first table (Table 5.5) represents the kinds and percentage of the DMs in English Books 1, 2,
and 3 and the second table (Table 5.6) shows the kinds of the DMs used in English Book 4 (see Appendix B). Figure 5.1
shows the percentages of the DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3, and Figure 5.2 illustrates the percentages of the DMs in
English Book 4:
TABLE 5.5. THE MOST AND THE LEAST FREQUENT DMS IN ENGLISH BOOKS 1, 2, AND 3
Kinds of DMs & percentages Contrastive Elaborative Inferential Topic Change
Book 1 16 8 12 0
Book 2 19 22 11 0
Book 3 12 13 10 0
Total Number & Percentage 47 38.21%
43 34.95%
33 26.82%
0 0%
Figure 5.1. DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3
In ‗contrastive markers‘ but was the most frequent kind of the DMs in English Books 1, 2 and 3, there were 46 buts.
There were 16, 19, and 11 buts in English Books 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The second frequent DMs used were 28 ands
from ‗elaborative markers.‘ There were 8, 14, and 6 ands in English Books 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In ‗inferential
categories,‘ the most frequent DMs was 12 sos. There were 4, 7, and 1 sos in English Books 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Totally, there were 47 (or 38.21%) ‗contrastive markers,‘ 43 (or 34.95%) ‗elaborative markers,‘ 33 (or 26.82%)
‗inferential markers,‘ and ‗topic change markers‘ were totally ignored in these books. At the end, it can be concluded
that the most frequent kinds of DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3 is ‗contrastive markers‘ (38. 21% ) and the least one is
‗topic change markers‘ (0%).
TABLE 5.6.
THE MOST AND THE LEAST FREQUENT DMS IN ENGLISH BOOKS 4
Kinds of DMs & Percentage Contrastive Elaborative Inferential Topic Change
Book 4 28 37.83%
34 45.94%
11 14.86%
1 1.35%
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1597
Figure 5.1. DMs in English Books
According to this Table 5.6, ‗elaborative markers‘ (45.94%) were the most frequent kinds of DMs in English Book 4
and after ‗elaborative markers‘ were ‗contrastive markers‘ (37.83%). Although ‗topic change markers‘ are not totally
ignored in comparison to English Books 1, 2, and 3, it is not used sufficiently (1.35%).
VI. DISCUSSION
Regarding the importance of DMs in reading comprehension, the findings of this study revealed that the frequencies
of the DMs in the reading comprehension sections in IHSETs are not sufficient. It means that the learners comprehend
the texts better when the texts included enough number of DMs. DMs in a text increase the coherence of a text. Larson
(1987) believes that ―the determination of coherence is fundamentally an interpretation by a reader. It is part of a
transaction between text and reader–between the readers‘ world and the writers‘ language‖ (pp. 66-72(. In addition,
when students are acquainted with different kinds of DMs, they are able to recognize the basic structure of a text, so it
enhances their comprehension of a text. For instance, if a sentence includes because or so, readers can realize that it is a
cause-effect sentence. Dymock (2005) thinks one of students‘ problems in comprehending the texts is that they are not
aware of the basic structures of a text. Expository texts come in a variety of patterns like description, sequence,
compare-contrast, cause-effect, and problem solution.
Eslami-Rasekh and Eslami-Rasekh (2007) investigated DMs in a study in three academic lectures. They found out
that DMs are important because they help readers and listeners understand the text better. They revealed in their results
that DMs facilitate the process of listening comprehension.
The findings of the present study revealed that DMs are not used sufficiently in reading comprehension texts in
English Books 1, 2, and 3 in comparison to the texts in internationally developed books. But the DMs in the reading
comprehension texts in English Book 4 in Iranian high schools are taken into consideration and are used sufficiently.
According to the results of this study, the structure of English Book 4 is different from the structure of English Books 1,
2, and 3.
Riazi and Mosalanejad (2010) have also studied occurrence of different learning objectives in exercises and tasks of
the textbooks based on Bloom‘s (1965) taxonomy in English books. Bloom‘s taxonomy includes six levels of
educational objectives: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. They have
classified these objectives into ―lower‖ and ―higher‖ order cognitive skills in their study.
This investigation showed that lower order components were dominant in English books in high school.
‗Application‘ was the most frequent taxonomy in English Books 1, 2, and 3 and ‗evaluation taxonomy‘ was totally
absent in English Books 1, 2, and 3. But ‗evaluation taxonomy‘ was considered in English Book 4, and again attention
to lower order cognitive skills were more than higher order objectives. Finally, it is important to note that ―lower order‖
taxonomies were more frequent than ―higher order‖ cognitive skills.
By improving the materials, authors can aid students to go beyond the lower level taxonomies and move to higher
order taxonomies. In the knowledge stage–the first level–students just remember the information or recall them, or then,
in comprehension, students understand the facts by translating, giving description, interpreting and giving main ideas. In
the last level, ‗evaluation,‘ students are able to make judgments about information and ideas. According to teachers‘
ideas, DMs have not received enough attention in English Books 1, 2 and 3, but explanations in English Book 4 are
provided to some extent and frequencies of the DMs in the texts are sufficient. Riazi and Mosalanejad (2010) believe
that students in grade 4 consider the texts and the topic as a whole and their comprehension is higher in comparison
with students who study the reading texts of English Books 1, 2, and 3 . It was mentioned earlier that DMs help readers
to comprehend the texts, but authors of the IHSETBs were not aware of this influence, so they omitted the DMs to
simplify the texts, and it produced the opposite results.
Some of the teachers thought the DMs were used in English Book 4 more frequently than in English Books 1, 2, and
3 because the main focus in English Book 4 is reading comprehension. But according to Dahmarde (2009), English
Books 1, 2, and 3 have also focused on reading comprehension. Reading comprehension has a big part in these three
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1598
English books but there is little attention on teaching strategies of reading. Based on high school English teachers‘
opinions, students tried to learn and memorize the meaning of the new vocabulary or structural points in the process of
reading. Students‘ reading skill does not improve in high school and they do not read to make meaning of the text. They
are not taught to focus on meaning or they are not told not to translate the texts. Interestingly, students thought the
important points in comprehending the texts were new vocabulary and structural points .
When students in grade 4 were asked about comprehension of the texts, they answered that although the texts are
longer than the texts in English Books 1, 2, and 3, they are more interesting and they could comprehend the texts better .
They also said that they are not able to guess the meaning of the texts. Although many kinds of DMs are presented to
students in English Book 4, they consider them as structural rules. They are not told that these markers help them to
make a relationship between different sentences. If they were aware of the influence of DMs, they would be able to
consider the sentences as a whole and focus on meaning instead of focusing on separate items of vocabulary . They
realized that the way of reading changed completely from readings in the three previous books, but they did not know
why they comprehend the text better, and even they did not know better comprehension of the texts is the result of DMs
which make the text coherent.
The results also showed that ‗contrastive markers‘ are the most frequent kinds of DMs used in English Books 1, 2 and
3. These three books include 38.21% ‗contrastive markers,‘ 34.95% ‗elaborative markers,‘ 26.82% ‗inferential markers‘
of the total DMS, and ‗topic change markers‘ are not used at all. English Book 4 considered DMs as an important topic,
so it was studied separately regarding the kinds of DMs used. ‗Elaborative markers‘ are used more than other three
categories of DMs. This book includes 37.83% ‗contrastive markers,‘ 45.94% ‗elaborative markers,‘ 14.86%
‗inferential markers,‘ and just 1.35% ‗topic change markers.‘
VII. CONCLUSION
According to the results of this study, the reading comprehension sections of high school English Books 1, 2, and 3 in
Iran do not include sufficient number of DMs, but the reading comprehension texts in English Book 4 have enough
number of DMs. In addition, in terms of the kinds of DMs used in English books, the findings of this study
demonstrated that the most frequent kinds of DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3 are ‗contrastive markers,‘ whereas
‗topic change markers‘ are not included. In English Book 4, however, the most frequent kind of DMs is ‗elaborative
markers‘ and the least one is ‗topic change markers.‘ In the case of teachers‘ ideas about the DMs in English books, the
present study showed that the teachers had the same ideas as the results of the study. They believed that the number of
the DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3 are not sufficient. But the number of the DMs in English Book 4 was enough.
They also added that the DMs in the reading sections help students to comprehend the text better. The students thought
they understand the texts better in English Book 4, but they did not know that DMs increase this comprehension. By
representing shortages of the DMs in English Books 1, 2, and 3, it is hoped that the findings will encourage the authors
of textbooks to consider the use of DMs in the process of reading comprehension as an important factor in reading skill.
APPENDIX A THE FLESCH‘S (1948) READING EASE READABILITY FORMULA
The specific mathematical formula is:
RE = 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW)
RE = Readability Ease
ASL = Average Sentence Length (i.e., the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
ASW = Average number of syllables per word (i.e., the number of syllables divided by the number of words). Flesch
(1948) (as cited in Crossley, 2011)
APPENDIX B
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1599
TABLE 5.1.
COMPARISON OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 1 AND THE AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Textbook 1,
Lessons:
Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number of
DMs
Authentic Books Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number
of DMs
The Funny Farmhand (2)
69.419 130 and 1 Introductory Steps to Understanding
89.788 147 so, and, but, too, but, and, and
7
Learn a Foreign
Language (5)
83.582 204 because,
but,
2 Racing Driver
(Head Way)
83.18 212 So, because, then,
and, so, then,
because, but, but, and, because
11
The Boy Who
Made Steam Work (6)
94.481 324 but, but,
and, but, and, and
6 Looking After
Sarah (Start Reading 4)
91.745 315 and, but, and, then,
and, but, and, but, so, again, but, again,
and, again, so, too,
then, but, again
19
The Holy
Prophet (9)
79.683 160 0 The New Mozart
(Head Way)
81.826 143 but, and, but, but,
and, too, and, so
8
Total: 9 Total: 45
TABLE 5.2.
COMPARISON OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 2 AND THE AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Book 2, Lesson: Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number
of DMs
Authentic
Books
Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number
of DMS
Charls Dikens and the Little
Children (4)
93.362 263 so, and, but, and
4 Taffy‘s Trousers
93.314 262 too, but, and, but, but, and, but, and
9
Hic Hic
Hic (6)
41.715 223 and, then, or,
or, or, but, but, and, but
8 The Lady
Who Lives on Plan
49.422 211 because, so, but, then,
also, and, and, but, because, and
10
How Are You
(7)
80.381 444 but, but, but,
but, but, so, so, yet
8 The Empty
Chair
72.111 460 well, and, then,
because, well, and, but, and, but, and, and, but,
because, because
14
The Other Side of the Moon (2)
95.588 216 but, but, but, but, so
5 Marvin‘s Wooly
Mammoth
93.708 234 then, so, then, but, but, and, still, and,
8
Total: 25 Total: 41
TABLE 5.3.
COMPARISON OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 3 AND THE AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Book 3
Lesson:
Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number
of DMs
Authentic
Books
Readability Number of
Words
DMs Number of
DMS
TV or no
TV (1)
93.177 351 then, but, and 3 The King of
the Fish
97.313 332 too, but, and, and,
and, and, then,
but, so, then, but
11
Memory (3) 70.277 263 yet, but, thus, but, again
5 Trading Space 73.677 292 and, however, but, so, but, but, but,
so, but, even
though
11
The
Olympic
Games (4)
61.317 244 and, because
of
2 The Tale of
Horribly
Good Bertha
75.165 252 And, and, so, and,
and, but, and, and,
because, and, but
11
Every Word IS a
Puzzle (5)
87.898 410 but, and, then, but, so, but,
because, and, but, but
10 Kiamaus Paper Bag
89.158 374 and, too, too, but, and, then, and,
and, then, then, and, and
12
Total: 20 Total: 45
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1600
TABLE 5.4.
COMPARISON OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 4 AND THE AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Book 4
Lesson:
Readability Number
of Words
DMs Number
of DMs
Authentic
Books
Readability Number
of Words
DMs Number
of DMs
How to Give a Good
Speech(2)
72.312 655 and, then, also, and, but, and, but,
7 How to Give a Good
Speech
79.975 652 so, again, and, and, then, and, and, then,
but, too, and
11
Space
Exploration (6)
62.808 596 then, also, also
although, and
5 What You
Don‘t Know about
Exercise
63.276 608 but, too, and, but,
and, and, however, that means, but
10
Mother Teresa (8)
54.548 315 and, although, still, and 4 Ordering Aspirin is
Truly a
Wonder Drug
54.966 308 although, and, also, but, and, but
6
Thomas (8)
Edison
55.337 294 besides, and, although,
instead
4 The Crime
of the Month
57.603 32 and, moreover, also,
on the other hand, also, but
7
Global
Warming,
Global Concern (3)
75.029 594 but, and, and because,
but, but, but, in some
cases, but, with this in mind
10 The Earth‘s
Spreading
Desert
69.231 604 however, and, and,
and, still, but, but,
7
Earthquakes
and How to Survive
Them (4)
78.893 543 in comparison to, but,
though, so, but, but, and, so, but,
9 Living a
Long Life
80.273 559 and, by comparison,
but, too, well, also, therefore
8
Total:
39
Total: 49
TABLE 5.5.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 1
Total
Topic Change Markers
Inferential Markers Elaborative Markers Contrastive Markers Book 1 Lessons
2 - so, so - - Lesson 1
1 - - and - Lesson 2
7 - because, therefore, then and but, but, but Lesson 3
6 - then, then - but, but, but, but Lesson 4
2 because - but Lesson 5
6 - and, and, and but, but, but Lesson 6
9 - so, then and, and, and but, but, but, but Lesson 7
3 - so, then - but Lesson 8
0 - - - - Lesson 9
36 0 4 so, 2 because,
1 therefore, 5 then
8 and 16 but Total
TABLE 5.6. DIFFERENT TYPES OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 2
Total Topic Change
Markers
Inferential Markers Elaborative Markers Contrastive Markers Book 2
Lessons
8 - then, then, so and, and, too, and but Lesson 1
5 - So - but, but, but, but Lesson 2
3 - - and but, but Lesson 3
4 - So and, and but Lesson 4
15 - then, so, so and, and, and, and, and,
and, too, also, again
but, but, but Lesson 5
9 - then and, or, or, or, and but, but, but Lesson 6
8 - So, so yet but, but, but, but, but lesson7
52 - 7 so, 4 then 14 and, 3 or, 2 too, 1 also,
1 yet, 1 again
19 but Total
TABLE 5.7.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 3
Book 3 Lesson
Contrastive Markers Elaborative Markers Inferential Markers Topic Change Markers
Total
Lesson 1 but and then - 3
Lesson 2 but, but, however in other words, or, and, and because of - 8
Lesson 3 but, but, yet, again thus - 5
Lesson 4 and, because of - 2
Lesson 5 but, but, but, but, but and, and, then, so, because - 10
Lesson 6 but in addition to, also, also because, This means, furthermore - 7
Total 11 but, 1 however 1 in other words, 1 again, 1 or, 6
and, 1 yet, 1 in addition to, 2 also.
2 because of, 2 then, 1 thus, 1 so, 2
because, 1 this means, 1 furthermore
- 35
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1601
TABLE 5.8.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DMS IN ENGLISH BOOK 4
Book 4 Lessons Contrastive Markers Elaborative Markers Inferential Markers Topic Change
Markers
Total
Lesson 1 but, but, but, but and, and, and, also, means, in addition, in addition,
and, in other words, too,
because, because, so - 17
Lesson 2 but, but also, and, and, and then - 7
Lesson 3 but, but, but, but, but and, and in some cases, because with this in mind 10
Lesson 4 in comparison to, but, though, but, but, but
and, so, so - 9
Lesson 5 but, but, on the other hand also, also, also, and, also because, in many cases - 10
Lesson 6 although also, and, also then - 5
Lesson 7 however, although, but also, and, and, also, and - - 8
Lesson 8
(Reading1)
although, still
and, and
- - 4
Lesson 8
(Reading 2)
although, instead, besides, and - - 4
Total 18 but, 5 (al)though, 1 on the other hand, 1 however,1 in
comparison, 1 instead, 1 still
18 and, 10 also, 1 besides, 1 in other words, 1 means,2
in addition, 1 too
3 so,4 because, 2 then, 2 in cases, 1 with this in mind 74
REFERENCES
[1] Birjandi, P., Ananisarab, M. R., & Samimi, D. (2000). Learning to read English for pre-university students. Tehran: Iran
Textbook Publisher.
[2] Birjandi, P., Nowroozi, M., & Mahmoodi, Gh. (2002a). English book 2. Tehran: Iran Textbook Publisher.
[3] Birjandi, P., Nowroozi, M., & Mahmoodi, Gh. (2002b). English book 3. Tehran: Iran Textbook Publisher.
[4] Birjandi, P., Soheili, A., Nowroozi, M., & Mahmoodi, Gh. (2000). English book 1. Tehran: Iran Textbook Publisher.
[5] Crossley, S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a foreign
language, 23(1), 84-101.
[6] Dahmardeh, M. (2009). Communicative textbooks: English language textbooks in Iranian secondary school. Linguistik Online,
40(4).
[7] Dulger, O. (2007). Discourse markers in writing. Seluck University Sosyal Bilimler Enstitutus Dergis, 18, 257-270.
[8] Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-182.
[9] Eggleton, J. (1984). Marvin's Wooly Mammoth. Tehran: Jungle Publication.
[10] Eslami Rasekh, Z., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2007). The use of discourse markers in academic Lectures. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1),
22-38.
[11] Fraser, B. (1991). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
[12] Gabb, S. (2001). From talk to print: Preparing student to read with ease. Field Notes, 10(2).
http://www.sabes.org/resources/fieldtotes/vol110/ fn102.pdf (accessed 10/9/2010).
[13] Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialists, 21, 126-135.
[14] Halliday , M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[15] Hartley, B., & Viney, P. (1995b). New American streamline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16] Hill, L. A. (1980). Introductory steps to understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[17] Hill, L.A. (1980). Steps to understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18] Hussein.M.(2006). Discourse markers in English.. (accessed 20/8/2010).
http://star28.academia.edu/MiriHussein/Papers/494852/TWO_ACCOUNTS_OF_DISCOURSE_MARKERS_IN_ENGLISH
[19] Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. The Asian EFL journal, 9(2), 130-150.
[20] Larson, R. (1987). Structure and form in non-narrative prose. In T. Gray (Ed.), Teaching composition: 12 bibliographical
essays (pp. 39-82). Fort Worth: Texas Christian UP.
[21] Louwerse, M. M. & Graesser, A. C. (2005). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. (pp. 216-
218) Chicago, Fitzroy Dearborn.
[22] Markstein, L., & Hirasawa, L. (1981). Developing reading skills. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
[23] Markstein, L., & Hirasawa, L. (1982). Expanding reading skills. New York: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
[24] Mingliang, L., & Dayon, L. (2007). Another look at functional discourse markers in CET reading texts. Civil Aviation Flight
University of China, 30(4), 105-110.
[25] Razmjoo, S. A. (2007). High school or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill communicative language teaching principles
in the Iranian context? Asian EFL Journal, 9(4):125-139.
[26] Redecker, G., (1991). Review article: Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139-1172.
[27] Riazi, M., & Mosalanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning objectives in Iran high-school and pre-university English
textbooks using Bloom‘s taxonomy. TESL-EL, 13(4): 1-16.
[28] Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[29] Soars. L., & Soars J. (2000a). Elementary new headway English course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[30] Strange, D. (1989). Start reading 4. New York: Oxford University Press.
[31] Strange, D. (1989). Start reading 5. New York: Oxford University Press.
[32] Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explanation in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
1602
Mohammad Reza Talebinejad is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Islamic Azad University,
Shahreza Branch. He is also an associate faculty member at Sheikhbahaee University, Iran.
Dr Talebinejad received his BA in English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan in 1975. He
then got his MA in TEFL from the University of Texas at Austin, USA in 1977. For his doctoral degree, Dr
Talebinejad was admitted to the University of Sheffield, UK, where he did his PhD in Applied Linguistics in
1994.
He has widely published in Iranian as well as International professional journals such as Metaphor and
Symbol, English Teaching Forum, Language Testing, IJAl, Language and Translation, Journal of Social
Sciences, The International Journal of Humanities, and other local and international journals. Dr Talebinejad
has presented papers in International conferences such as AILA, 2000; Atiner, 2011; RAAM, 2002, 2001 in
Paris and Tunis, EUROSLA, Switzerland, 2006; Multicultural Conference, 2007, China. In addition, Dr Talebinejad has
authored/coauthored eight books in related fields and ESP.
Azam Namdar graduated from Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch with a BA in TEFL in 2007. Ms
Namdar is an MA candidate in Graduate School of the Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch. She has
presented two articles in local and national conferences.